Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended |
Sep. 30, 2013 |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies |
Leases |
The Company leases certain equipment under capital leases which expire on various dates through June 2017. The leases bear interest at rates ranging from 6.6% to 9.6%, are generally due in monthly principal and interest installments and are collateralized by the related equipment. The Company also leases its buildings and certain equipment and vehicles under operating leases which expire on various dates through February 2018. Future minimum annual lease payments under such leases are as follows (in thousands): |
|
|
| | | | | | | |
Year Ending December 31, | Operating | | Capital |
Remainder of 2013 | $ | 1,014 | | | $ | 132 | |
|
2014 | 3,431 | | | 527 | |
|
2015 | 2,768 | | | 466 | |
|
2016 | 1,369 | | | 423 | |
|
2017 | 216 | | | 82 | |
|
Thereafter | 15 | | | — | |
|
| $ | 8,813 | | | 1,630 | |
|
Less: amount representing interest | | | (192 | ) |
Present value of minimum lease payments | | | 1,438 | |
|
Current portion of capital leases | | | (430 | ) |
Capital leases, less current portion | | | $ | 1,008 | |
|
Rent expense under operating leases for the three months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012 was $0.9 million and $0.9 million, respectively. Rent expense under operating leases for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012 was $2.9 million and $2.8 million, respectively. |
Litigation |
In 1998, Eurosurgical, a French company in the business of sales and marketing of spinal implants, entered into a distribution agreement for the United States, Mexico, Canada, India and Australia with Orthotec, LLC, a California company (“Orthotec”). In 2004, Orthotec sued Eurosurgical in connection with a contractual dispute and a final $9 million judgment was entered against Eurosurgical by a California court in 2006. In 2007, following a default judgment, a federal court in California declared Eurosurgical liable to Orthotec for $30 million in connection with an intellectual property dispute. In 2006, Eurosurgical’s European assets were ultimately acquired by Surgiview, SAS, or Surgiview, in a sale agreement, or the Partial Sale Agreement, approved by a French court. After this sale, Surgiview became a subsidiary of Scient’x in 2006. Orthotec attempted to recover on Eurosurgical’s obligations by filing a motion in a California court to add Surgiview to the judgment against Eurosurgical on theories including successor liability and fraudulent conveyance. In February 2007, the California court denied Orthotec’s motion, indicating that Orthotec had not carried its burdens of proof. Orthotec chose to not proceed with a further hearing in September 2007. |
In June 2004, HealthpointCapital (Luxembourg) I S.à.r.l. acquired a minority (33.1 percent) interest in Scient’x. In July 2005, Scient’x acquired an approximately 73 percent interest in Surgiview. At that time, HealthpointCapital Partners, L.P. (through a Luxembourg subsidiary) held a minority interest in Scient’x, which in turn held an interest in Surgiview, but HealthpointCapital Partners II, L.P. had no ownership interest in Scient’x or Surgiview. On November 21, 2007, more than a year after the Partial Sale Agreement was executed, HealthpointCapital Partners II, L.P. acquired majority ownership of Scient’x. In May 2008, after the acquisition of Scient’x by HealthpointCapital in 2007, Orthotec sued Scient’x, Surgiview, HealthpointCapital LLC and certain former directors of Scient’x (who also serve on the Company’s board) in a new action in California state court in which it sought (in addition to damages related to other causes of action and punitive damages related thereto) to have the defendants bear responsibility for the $39 million in judgments that had been assessed against Eurosurgical, which, together with interest is now greater than $55 million. In April 2009, the California court dismissed this matter on jurisdictional grounds, and Orthotec appealed the ruling. In December 2010, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision that affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s decision dismissing the entire California action based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Orthotec failed to establish personal jurisdiction over all parties except Surgiview, finding that the trial court could exercise jurisdiction over that entity. In January 2012, Orthotec amended its complaint and added the Company as a defendant to the California matter asserting claims against the Company based on its 2010 acquisition of Scient’x. Alphatec filed a motion for summary judgment in November 2012. This motion was denied in March 2013. The case was scheduled for trial in September 2013; however, such trial has been rescheduled to January 2, 2014. |
In addition, also in May 2008, a similar action was filed in New York against HealthpointCapital, HealthpointCapital LLC, HealthpointCapital Partners, L.P., HealthpointCapital Partners II, L.P., Scient’x and two former directors of Scient’x (who also serve on the Company’s board), in which Orthotec sought, in addition to damages related to other causes of action and punitive damages related thereto, to have the defendant’s bear responsibility for the $39 million in judgments that had been assessed against Eurosurgical, which, together with interest is now greater than $55 million. In July 2009, Orthotec voluntarily dismissed Scient’x from the action. In November 2009, the court dismissed Orthotec’s claims based on collateral estoppel, and Orthotec appealed this ruling. In March 2011, the state appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss Orthotec’s claims. The New York matter then proceeded with discovery, and the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2012. The motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. A notice of appeal has been filed with respect to the portion of the motion for summary judgment that was denied and a motion has been filed to stay this matter pending the resolution of such appeal. This motion has not been decided. Additionally, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss one of the plaintiff’s claims based upon Orthotec’s spoliation of evidence, which motion was denied. That denial was appealed, however the appeal was denied. Since March 2010, the Company has been paying legal costs that have been incurred with the New York matter in connection with the obligation to indemnify the two former directors of Scient'x. |
While the Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions, and believes that the plaintiff’s allegations are without merit, the outcome of the litigations cannot be predicted at this time and any outcome in favor of Orthotec, regardless of who the defendant is, could have a significant adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. |
On August 25, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company’s filed a derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, purporting to assert claims on behalf of the Company against all of its directors and certain of its officers and HealthpointCapital. Following the filing of this complaint, similar complaints were filed in the same court and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the same defendants containing similar allegations. The complaint filed in federal court was dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice in July 2011. The plaintiff amended its complaint and re-filed it in April 2012. This amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice in March 2013. In April 2013 the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The state court complaints have been consolidated into a single action. The Company has been named as a nominal defendant in the consolidated action. Each complaint alleges that the Company’s directors and certain of its officers breached their fiduciary duties to the Company related to the Scient’x transaction, and by making allegedly false statements that led to unjust enrichment of HealthpointCapital and certain of the Company’s directors. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and an order directing the Company to adopt certain measures purportedly designed to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these complaints; however no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of this lawsuit. |
At September 30, 2013, the probable outcome of any of the aforementioned litigation matters cannot be determined nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. Accordingly, in accordance with the authoritative guidance on the evaluation of contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to these litigation matters. The Company is and may become involved in various other legal proceedings arising from its business activities. While management does not believe the ultimate disposition of these matters will have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and depending on the nature and timing of these proceedings, an unfavorable resolution could materially affect the Company’s future consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position in a particular period. |
Royalties |
The Company has entered into various intellectual property agreements requiring the payment of royalties based on the sale of products that utilize such intellectual property. These royalties primarily relate to products sold by Alphatec Spine and are calculated either as a percentage of net sales or in one instance on a per-unit sold basis. Royalties are included on the accompanying condensed consolidated statement of operations as a component of cost of revenues. |